Snodgrass In House Attorney
Teddybear
seen him yet, although according to you he's been on the job since August.
Slain any RICO conspiracies for you yet?
Harun al Rashid
The problem is that he is an in house attorney. That means, if you want to
see him, you have to visit him, since he is not able to leave his house.
Funny, that reminds me of a certain in house Ray...
alpo gent
ray? or? mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
RayGordon
Dude tries to cross a bridge he burned. so odd. Talks about me the
way John Wilkes Booth talked about Lincoln, like several here.
Booth thought he'd be a hero. Fact is, he, like many, is the ongoing
threat, to anyone he does not like, or is paid not to like (many are),
because he has this belief that his dislike gives him a license to
stalk, or cross any legal boundary. The second he tries this on
anyone else, he's behind bars.
Think I'll carry this dope a few more debate rounds. He seems not to
understand the difference between cruising speed and racing speed.
Teddybear
"RayGordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:2eb4fbac-cd90-4175...@e7g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
>> How's it going with your
Answer the question. You threatened us with your new in house attorney. So
who is he and when is he going to start fighting your battles for you?
Hmmmm?
>
> Dude tries to cross a bridge he burned. so odd. Talks about me the
> way John Wilkes Booth talked about Lincoln, like several here.
> Booth thought he'd be a hero. Fact is, he, like many, is the ongoing
> threat, to anyone he does not like, or is paid not to like (many are),
> because he has this belief that his dislike gives him a license to
> stalk, or cross any legal boundary. The second he tries this on
> anyone else, he's behind bars.
Are you accusing me of committing a crime? Are you that stupid? BTW, it's
easy to see that you have never taken any classes on English Composition.
Are you in love with the comma key?
I believe that if you could prove that I committed a crime, you would run as
fast as you could to the nearest cop. So if you believe I have committed a
crime, it's your duty as a citizen to report it. So, what's that report
number and with what agency? I'm waiting......(sound of crickets
chirping).....cummon tough guy, stick your neck out there, go ahead.......
>
> Think I'll carry this dope a few more debate rounds. He seems not to
> understand the difference between cruising speed and racing speed.
>
>
Is that the best you can do? Perhaps Mystery was right, Idiot Savant
indeed...
An Old Friend
>> How's it going with your
>
> Dude tries to cross a bridge he burned. so odd. Talks about me the way
> John Wilkes Booth talked about Lincoln, like several here. Booth
> thought he'd be a hero. Fact is, he, like many, is the ongoing threat,
> to anyone he does not like, or is paid not to like (many are), because
> he has this belief that his dislike gives him a license to stalk, or
> cross any legal boundary. The second he tries this on anyone else, he's
> behind bars.
Good to see an admission that whatever the previous poster was doing is
legal as far as Gordon Roy Parker is concerned. Then again, there's the
fantasy that Mr. Parker holds that he alone is the person who should be
the judge and jury and that he is the only one, apparently, who has the
authority and responsibility to put people "behind bars."
Perhaps that fantasy comes from the days when he claims to have been
abused by his mother's boyfriend, presumably with her approval, and he
was able to testify and have the boyfriend convicted. It's a clear
connect-the-dots.
> Think I'll carry this dope a few more debate rounds. He seems not to
> understand the difference between cruising speed and racing speed.
I wouldn't be holding my breath. Mr. Parker claims to know who I am and
had made statements that would imply that I have committed crimes that
place me in a category of criminals that should be incarcerated long-term
for the public's safety. Yet no law enforcement officers have ever
approached me about any claims Mr. Parker has made against me. This
indicates that, if Mr. Parker did indeed report any of my activities to
law enforcement, the officers did not think the report was worth
investigating. It may also show that Mr. Parker has not reported any of
my activities, and is deliberately lying about alleged penalties for my
actions--after all, there can be no penalties for something that is not
reported, investigated, and prosecuted.
I, or anyone else, can not be "behind bars" unless Mr. Parker reports my
activities to the relevant law enforcement officials AND those officials
investigate the report AND determine that it is in the public interest
for me to be held accountable for those activities. Mr. Parker's
statements are always "people go to prison for that" and "restraining
order time" but he never seems to actually follow through with his claims
to report the activities. Or perhaps Law Enforcement sees Mr. Parker as
"the boy who cried WOLF" and don't pay any attention to him anymore.
In any case, Mr. Parker's attempts to silence his critics in civil court
have largely failed. And he also fails in getting law enforcement to
agree with him that he is an innocent victim, thanks to his unclean hands.
If Snodgrass indeed had an in-house attorney, I would have expected--
given Mr. Parker's statements about my behavior, for there to be a
registered, certified letter in the mail from the attorney stating which
behaviors I would be made accountable for, proof that I was the one
behind those behaviors, and advising me to stop those behaviors. Mr.
Parker claims to know where I live, so the delivery of such a letter is
inexpensive and easy. NO such letter has ever arrived at any of my homes
or any places where I have worked.
Now, if Mr. Parker is acting as his own attorney (thereby being his own
in-house attorney), then he is guilty of misrepresentation. A company
which states that they have an in-house attorney is conventionally
accepted to mean that the company has hired a bar-certified lawyer on a
full-time basis to focus on the company's legal issues and no one else's
(to avoid any conflict of interest).
If my company had an in-house attorney and she had been as slack as
Snodgrass's appears to be, she would have been fired quite quickly.
Teddybear
"An Old Friend" <an....@friend.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:aURSm.58973$de6....@newsfe21.iad...
> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 20:10:48 -0800, RayGordon wrote:
>
>>> How's it going with your
>>
>> Dude tries to cross a bridge he burned. so odd. Talks about me the way
>> John Wilkes Booth talked about Lincoln, like several here. Booth
>> thought he'd be a hero. Fact is, he, like many, is the ongoing threat,
>> to anyone he does not like, or is paid not to like (many are), because
>> he has this belief that his dislike gives him a license to stalk, or
>> cross any legal boundary. The second he tries this on anyone else, he's
>> behind bars.
>
ongoing threat? I don't see a threat there. Is this another of your
imaginary threats? Stalking? Crossing legal boundries? What ARE you
talking about?
I guess, since your other lawsuits are about to be thrown out, you must be
trolling for another one. Another failure on your Resume'.....LOL
> Good to see an admission that whatever the previous poster was doing is
> legal as far as Gordon Roy Parker is concerned. Then again, there's the
> fantasy that Mr. Parker holds that he alone is the person who should be
> the judge and jury and that he is the only one, apparently, who has the
> authority and responsibility to put people "behind bars."
>
He is having delusions of self importance. I guess it's to be expected if
someone has a narcisissm problem.
> Perhaps that fantasy comes from the days when he claims to have been
> abused by his mother's boyfriend, presumably with her approval, and he
> was able to testify and have the boyfriend convicted. It's a clear
> connect-the-dots.
>
>> Think I'll carry this dope a few more debate rounds. He seems not to
>> understand the difference between cruising speed and racing speed.
More like the differance between "all stop" and "Abandon Ship!!"
The point is, the threat was empty when he made it, it was a lie. Now he is
threatening the person who is holding him to his words. Another empty
threat, because I have never threatened or defamed him. He builds these
idiotic conspiracy theories for a number of reasons:
1. Most of the people he claims have defamed him do not live in the
jurisdiction of his district.
2. Claiming a RICO conspiracy allows him to abuse the system for about a
year.
3. He thinks he is punishing his detractors by making them pay money for
attornies to quash his "cases".
4. It allows him to throw anyone he pleases into the case, because he does
not care about the outcome.
5. He enjoys being treated as a litigant by the Court.
6. He believes that being dragged into court (assuming he actually joins
the defendants) will make them stop disagreeing with him.
7. He believes that the First Amendment was written only for him.
8. He has dreams of liberal discovery being granted, so that he can
embarrass his detractors and make them stop disagreeing with him.
Of course, his worse nightmare would be if nobody bothered to comment on his
posts. Therein lies the great conflict suffered by all newsloons, success
in silencing his critics, would cause his demise. He is thrilled by having
people, who he assumes are more important than him, pay attention to him.
All of his posts are pleas for attention, and if he did not get that
attention, he would not be here for very long.
Anyone can defeat one of his "lawsuits" by simply asking the Court for
permission to file a MTD as a John Doe, or oppose his supoena on the grounds
that there is no cause for his suit, no damages suffered, and no evidentary
support. Always remember that his "damages", would be based on the actions
of the Defendant, and would only reflect damages suffered as a result of the
Defendant's actions. NOT the sum total of his "loss" going backwards for
years. The plain fact is, with a sub poverty income going back for many
years, and documented in the records of the FDC of the ED of Pa., so ANY
lawsuit he files is dead on arrival due to his lack of damages. This is the
most basic and fundimental flaw in all of his lawsuits, and the reason he
will never be represented by a real attorney. For him, the Courts are just
a hobby, but for a real attorney it's about compensation for representation.
Since he has zero chance of ever gaining money from one of his lawsuits, he
also has zero chance of being represented.
Checkmate
Cybderdog
Talks about me the
> way John Wilkes Booth talked about Lincoln
He criticizes you for extending voting rights to blacks?
Uh, okay, dipshit.
Krus T. Olfard
06cc3e...@e7g2000vbi.googlegroups.com:
So instead of being Jesus you're Lincoln???
How effin' foolish!